UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that ATR’s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The UNAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.
The UNAT further held that the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in concluding that ATR had a right to be informed of the specific disciplinary measure imposed on the offender. The UNAT found that this issue was moot because ATR had already learned the sanction through another UNDT judgment, and any ruling would have no practical effect. The UNAT emphasized that Section 5.5(i) of ST/SGB/2019/8 requires informing the affected individual of the “outcome of the matter,” which occurred when ATR was advised that a disciplinary measure had been imposed on her former colleague.
The UNAT found that Article 12(2) of the UNDT Statute does not contemplate the Dispute Tribunal reassessing its conclusions, and thus the motion for correction should have been denied.
Accordingly, the UNAT dismissed ATR’s appeal and granted the Secretary-General’s appeal, reversing the UNDT’s order requiring disclosure of the specific disciplinary measure, and affirmed the remainder of Judgment No. UNDT/2024/100.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) contested the Administration’s decision to inform her only that “an appropriate disciplinary measure” had been imposed on a colleague who sexually harassed her, without specifying the sanction, and to deny her request for confirmation that the offender’s name was entered in the ClearCheck database. She also sought compensation for harm suffered.
The United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) in Judgment No. UNDT/2024/100 granted the application in part, finding that the staff member had a right to be informed of the specific disciplinary measure imposed, but denied the claims regarding ClearCheck and compensation.
Both parties appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
While either the UNDT or the UNAT may order as a remedy moral damages as compensation for harm, this must occur as a remedy imposed in the context of an administrative decision reviewed.
An issue will be moot if any remedy issued would have no concrete effect because it would be purely academic or the proposed resolution of the dispute would have no practical significance, with no actual controversy between the parties remaining and no possibility existing that any ruling made would have a material or real effect.
In the United Nations system of administration of justice, the UNAT was established to adjudicate existing disputes, but not to give interpretations of the law where there are no extant cases before it. Where however, an injustice would arise or there exists a significant public interest in settling issues of law which requires the matter to be heard, the UNAT may do so as an exception to the doctrine of mootness.
When a judgment has already been placed before the UNAT for consideration on appeal, the UNDT may not correct such judgment pending appeal.